Construct coherent and accurate responses to self-test questions drawing on subject knowledge
Constructing Coherent and Accurate Responses to Self-Test Questions
1. Understand the Question Thoroughly
Read the question carefully to grasp what is being asked.
Identify key terms and legal principles involved.
Determine whether the question requires explanation, analysis, application, or evaluation.
2. Organize Your Answer
Use a logical structure:
Introduction: Briefly state the topic or issue.
Body: Present detailed explanation, including definitions, principles, and relevant laws or case laws.
Case Laws/Examples: Support your points with pertinent case law to demonstrate application.
Conclusion: Summarize key points or answer the question directly.
3. Use Subject Knowledge
Apply theoretical knowledge accurately.
Relate concepts to real-life legal situations or precedents.
Highlight the significance and implications of the law.
4. Explain with Clarity
Use simple, precise language.
Avoid ambiguity and unnecessary jargon.
Define technical terms when necessary.
5. Include Relevant Case Laws
Provide case names, facts, decisions, and their legal importance.
Show how case law supports your argument or illustrates the principle.
Example: Self-Test Question
Question: Explain the doctrine of ‘Delegatus Non Potest Delegare’ and discuss its exceptions with relevant case laws.
Sample Answer
Introduction:
The doctrine of Delegatus Non Potest Delegare means a delegate cannot delegate. It implies that a person or authority entrusted with a power cannot transfer it to another unless authorized.
Explanation:
This principle ensures accountability and that the power is exercised by the designated authority. It prevents dilution of responsibility and maintains the chain of command.
Exceptions:
When the statute or instrument expressly allows sub-delegation.
When the power is ministerial and administrative in nature.
When sub-delegation is necessary due to practical reasons.
Case Laws:
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979): The Supreme Court held that sub-delegation is not permissible unless expressly authorized.
Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Madras (1956): Invalidated unauthorized sub-delegation, affirming that delegation must be personal.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): Highlighted procedural fairness and restricted unauthorized sub-delegation.
Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar (1925): Early case reinforcing the principle against sub-delegation.
Conclusion:
Thus, while the general rule prohibits sub-delegation, exceptions exist where expressly or impliedly permitted. The doctrine safeguards proper exercise of delegated powers.
Additional Case Laws Illustrating Clear Responses
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Discusses the basic structure doctrine.
Use to illustrate constitutional interpretation.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Shows expansion of due process.
Useful in questions on fundamental rights.
3. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Explains judicial power of tribunals.
Helps in administrative law questions.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Controls delegated legislation.
Relevant in separation of powers topics.
Summary Tips
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| Understand Question | Identify what is asked precisely |
| Structure Answer | Intro, body, case laws, conclusion |
| Use Subject Knowledge | Apply relevant legal principles and theories |
| Support with Cases | Cite case law with facts and rulings |
| Clarity & Precision | Write clearly, avoid ambiguity |
RELATED Blog
0 comments